Says law enforcement officers back measure

LOS ANGELES (CBS) — In the wake of the recent deadly shooting in Tucson, congressional Democrats are calling for tighter control on guns and one local assemblyman is leading the effort.

State Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, who represents Pasadena and surrounding cities, has introduced a bill to ban the “open carry” of firearms in the state of California.

Portantino tells KNX 1070 that law enforcement officers have thrown their support behind the bill.

The assemblyman’s efforts are the latest to join a chorus of politicians targeting stricter gun limits: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) recently voiced her support for tougher federal gun laws after the mass shooting in Arizona that left six people dead and 14 others wounded, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson).

(©2010 CBS Local Media, a division of CBS Radio Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Wire services contributed to this report.)

Comments (35)
  1. logelly says:

    California should have a concealed carry permit

    1. Sean says:

      Stop and think about this for a moment… Let’s just say they passed new laws that banned all guns and that everyone that had one had to turn it in or face prosecution. Then, since no one would have guns and any police shooting would be probably be considered excessive force, let’s disarm all of law enforcement. Would you feel safer? No? Why? Oh because it’s stupid to think that a criminal, who is willing to steal, rob or kill, would be worried about a gun law. You’re right. So who then do you think a gun ban would be disarming? Gun haters say that this is a silly argument. How so?

      The truth is, the fear of guns is illogical. If guns did not exist, all of the gun haters would be afraid of something else and push to ban whatever that is. Knives, rocks, spears, bows and arrows, baseball bats, axes, people work out too much etc. More than six people would have been killed in Tucson had the shooter chosen a carpenter hammer as his weapon of choice rather than a gun since it does not need to be reloaded and a strike to the head from that is more lethal than a bullet. The logical fear, and oddly enough the one that both gun haters and gun lovers both feel, is the fear of being helpless against an attacker. The sides just go about curing it in opposite ways.

  2. jboy says:

    Open carry in CA means the gun MUST be empty and not near schools or Government buildings etc….

    Seriously, what difference does it make? I think I would rather be aware that some one is carrying a gun than one who has it concealed.

    What a waste of time and money, every one in CA sholuld be REQUIRED to carry a gun.

    1. chuck says:

      yes you right .the state could sell ccw and get $$$to help to pay bills

  3. TR says:

    Just another Lib not listening to the will of the people.
    I can kill someone just as dead with a car. Shall we outlaw those? Oh, wait, your already trying to do that.

    Thanks Daddy!

    1. EMW says:

      OH loardy, i’m tired of hearing people compare Guns to objects that don’t compare!!! Whats the purpose of having a gun? To shoot it, with the intent on hurting someone… There is no way around it… regardless if you are hunting, protecting yourself or your loved ones, its sole purpose is to injure… Now can you do anything else with a gun? NO!

      Oh but lets compare it to a car… Yeah of course you can kill someone with a car, it happens all the time, but is that the purpose of a car, no…

      So stop comparing Guns to other objects that doesn’t have the original intent to kill… Go ahead and compare a gun to a hand grenade or a war missile or some other form of weapons for mass destruction…

      1. DPC says:

        You look at it as hurting someone. I look it as saving another. Guns save so many lives but you’ll never see that in the media. And that is the problem.

        So…cops carry guns even though they don’t always shoot people, right?

        Tell me, do you think a would-be criminal seeing someone armed just might be a deterrent, without having to shoot someone?

      2. curmudgeon says:

        You need to spend some time around guns. The first purpose of owning a gun is to assert you right to do so. It’s like voting…you should do it. After that, the purpose of owning a gun is the enjoyment of shooting it for lawful recreation….hunting, target shooting, gunsmithing, reloading, etc. etc. Other than a possible use for home defense, gun owners don’t have a killing agenda. That is all in your mind.

      3. self defense does not end at the front door says:

        Sorry the argument is valid and shall stand. Your instance on taking my right to protect my life however is unconstitutional thus making it a crime. Self defense does not end when I walk out my front door.

  4. U.S Patriot says:

    If every citizen authorized to own a firearm carried that firearm there would be a huge drop in violent crime and incidents like the one in Arizona would have far less victims. If we keep making gun ownership harder for law-abiding citizens… then only the criminals will have guns!

    1. shoe says:

      How idealistic, dead bodies everywhere

    2. Pete says:

      I recall 60 minutes doing a peice on that very idea in the late 80’s. Miami FL was the murder capital of the world. After issuing CCW’s to Law abiding citizen’s, who had some training, the murder and violent crime rate dropped dramatically per the FBI stats.

    3. moral_threat says:

      Those that do not believe that CCW’s can have an effect on reducing violent crime need to look up Defensive Gun Usages and see just how many times a year guns are used in self-defense. If you think that imposing more restrictions on gun ownership will reduce crime then you are just a fool and the criminals will love you.

    4. Matt Woods says:

      You are right on target, no pun intended.

    5. chuck says:

      guns keep the U.S.A. free for 200 year just think about it [warsnot on U.S.A. soil]

  5. Ken says:

    Sounds good to me !!!! The criminals are carrying; why shouldn’t law-abiding citizens be able to ????

  6. logelly says:

    next thing the libs will have car control and pencil control so it can not kill people etc. california is such a joke

  7. James S says:

    How about we enforce the laws already on the books, uninforced laws are a waste of time and do nothing to stop criminals.

  8. TT says:

    There should be common sense,safety first and discretion in everything we do everyday, but we still have a second ammendment….

  9. no_bozos says:

    Everyone is born with the right to defend themselves…including concealed-carry off the books, period.

    As I get older, and have to walk through the concrete jungle, I likely can not handle being forced to fist-fight a gang o thugs again as in my younger years.

    Government can not guarantee my life, liberty & pursuit of happiness. Instead they want me to get beat up, robbed, go to the hospital under Obamacare to essentially be robbed again tsk!

  10. Dan says:

    According to the United States Supreme Court, they ruled against the handgun ban in Chicago (June, 2010) citing in their decision: “Chicago Police Department statistics, we are told, reveal that the City’s handgun murder rate has actually increased since the ban was enacted and that Chicago residents now face one of the highest murder rates in the country and rates of otherviolent crimes that exceed the average in comparable cities.”

    You can read the entire decision here:

    Basically, when you ban guns, crimes against individuals goes up…… So, is that what this assemblyman wants for California?

  11. jacob najar says:

    Hey you Damn Liberals! Guns don’t kill people… People kill people regardless
    God bless the second the amendment…

  12. JohnG says:

    Maybe we can vote out State Assemblyman Anthony Portantino. This is another knee jerk reaction from our wonderful lawmakers.

    1. GC1008 says:

      Oh JohnG… soooo practical. Good for you. And we all need to vote, not just talk or complain about it.

  13. Tony R. says:

    This will be like the Cell Ban while driving, I see more people driving with their cell phones, then prior to the law. The politicians need to lear, that there are bad people out there, period, no law will prevent that. I beleive the the numbnuts who shot in Tucson, bought the gun legally. So what is this law going to prevent. Just another wasted politician wanting his 15 min of fame at the expense of the victims in Tucson. Why dont you use my tax dollars wisely, and fix the f’n budget!!!!!!!!!

    1. self defense does not end at the front door says:

      Nicely Put Toni! Fix that budget that what you are to do. Bad politician go to your room and think about what you have done. Next time this happens your going to get grounded. See Politicians are dangerous kids.

  14. VIKLOS says:

    when you outlaw guns…only outlaws have guns! look at mexico & how many people are victims DAILY!! If people were able to own& even carry a gun maybe cartels wouldnt be runnin the country killing innocent people.
    In California you gotta be a victim before you can even defend yourself! I lived in Arizona for a few years& felt safer being able to carry my gun to defend myself if someone wanted to try to rob or do random shootings. If someone even makes verbal threat saying they’re gonna kill you ,you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself!

  15. April O says:

    Guns don’t Kill people PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! If you believe the opposite to be true then do you also believe that pencils misspell words, cars drive drunk, and forks make people fat! Tighter gun laws will not take guns out of the hands of the criminals or those how wish harm on someone, or those whose suffer from mental illnesses. This issue should be dealt with by better educating people and posing stricter punishments for the low life’s using them for bad!

  16. Alan Hart says:

    Australia took back all the weapons several years ago and the crime rate has steadily risen. A person who carries a gun is no longer a victim and may save someones life. The police can not be everywhere so you have to protect yourself. This is spelled out in the Constitution.

  17. logelly says:

    I believe that we should make it a high school requirement and teach kids gun saftey. how to properly handle a gun and unload a gun the right way. i show my guns to my kids all the time to take the curiosity away form them and they never ask about it or even try to unlock my safe I even have a camera pointed at my safe to know if they do try. my kids are 4 and 6 years of age.

    1. chuck says:

      good you have the right idea i did the same thing schools need to do this at a young age

  18. Charles E. Nichols says:

    KNX 1070, Portantino never answered your question regarding the constitutionality of AB 144 but you let him drone on through the entire segment and did not include an opposing view.

    If you want to hear the other side of the story send an email to or contact them at the website

  19. bsmart says:

    I used to be a hardcore gun hater. i was raised to fear and hate guns, and to believe only the police and military should have weapons. Even in law school, my liberal professors tiptoed around the second amendment. Finally after 40 years it dawned on me that without the second amendment, the government can deprive me of all my other rights under the constitution……esentially destroying the constitution. The right to keep and bear arms is second only to the right of free speech. think about it. If the sh-t was to hit the fan, the 2nd ammendment is your last ditch effort to free speech and all your other freedoms from the government. Guns protect u from over-government or dictatorship…..not just criminals

  20. chuck says:

    thank you you are right

  21. Virtygo says:

    I don’t understand why Portantino would blainantly say that people carry their automatic weapons in public. There are not legal automatic weapons in California that can be publicly displayed without a license.

    Either Portantino is incomplete in understanding firearms and the law or grossly unethical in his portrayal of the current state of firearms law and the Bill of RIghts.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE